Please see my comments in blue at that
site if the formatting doesn't translate with Yahoo (which I'm sure it won't).

Sincerely,

John Knight

Dear John, I am starting a new string here
that follows that about women being silent in the assembly.

CONTEXT.

Dear John, You
say, I understand what you asked for, and the purpose of the analogy was to provide
a "context" for why God's Law is this way and how it applies to today's
world, but I do not think you fully do. When I have been talking about
context, I have been talking about the actual context confined in the verses
themselves. We just cannot provide an extraneous context in the way you do because
doing that is changing the context in which the passages were written, and thus the end
result is not what you think that it is. Your list of translations is meaningless as
a means of establishing an already presumed context. I will start from scratch to
try to show you what I mean.

Most of us will have heard about a person
who is supposed to have stuck a pin in a Bible and is supposed to have read, Judas
went and hanged himself, and then stuck in the pin again and read, Go thou and
do likewise. This might sound a bit corny, but in sermons and in writings this
activity is a reality that is ongoing. Yes, it does happen. And of course, the
consequences may as unreasonable. You may not like me saying this, but I believe this is
what you are doing.

Let us together examine the context of two
passages that involve the role of women in the assembly.

1 Cor 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not
permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience,
as also saith the law. And if they will learn any
thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in
the church.

1 Tim 2:9-11 In
like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness
and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or
costly array; But (which becometh women professing
godliness) with good works.

Let the woman
learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to
usurp authority over the man (husband), but to be in silence. For Adam was
first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was
in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they
continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Now John, you start with a context
presumption that amounts to, See, women are not even to speak in the assembly,
the Bible clearly says this. But is it clear? It only seems to be clear
because something has been taken out of context! So let us do a bit of digging
for treasure!

In both verses the subject is
women and both contain the word learn. The two phrases are,
if they will learn anything and let the women learn In both the
word learn is the same Greek word man-than'-o which is about
understanding as well as learning. So obviously women can both learn and understand.

But is it about all women? In both
verses the word for women is goo-nay
(or wife). Youngs concordance indicates that the word is
translated 92 times as wife and 129 times as woman as you
correctly point out. So which is right? Which is right is determined by
context, as we shall see. Emails that insist this word means women (in
general) rather that wives simply because it is translated as
women more times than it is translated as wives. This is the
sort of poor logic we can do without.

The word for husband and
man in both verses is an-aur which
means husband. It is actually translated as husband in one
verse, but not in the other, but the context of this is shown in the Adam and Eve
relationship mentioned in the second verse. It is in a husband-wife
relationship context only. Those with a little knowledge of language know that the
word for man is NOT the generic term anthropos.
So the passages do not involve men in general; they involve husbands.

Thus, in both verses Scripture refine the
women concerned down married women with husbands. We can see this in the
second verse where it talks about the wife being saved in childbirth. A single woman
does not properly have a husband to have children with. There is no evidence that
these two passages refer to single women, even in a future potential manner. There is no
evidence they apply to widows.

Its not clear why Arnold
is so intent on excluding whores [read: single women], virgins, and widows from this verse
even though all translators agree that it applies to all women, but lets indulge him
for a moment. However, we do need for him to eventually answer this question.

VERY
SIMPLY, I AM NOT PREPARED TO CHANGE OR ADD TO THE CONTEXT AS YOU ARE WANT TO DO. THE
CONTEXT IS ONLY HUSBANDS AND WIVES, AND THAT ONLY!.

You have not a
shred of evidence that Paul intended to exclude whores, virgins, or widows from the
following verse, Arnold. You also failed, once again, to inform us why you believe
Paul would want to exclude any women from this statement. You also ignore, once
again, that whether or not you're correct, the end result is almost the same--no woman
should teach or have authority over a man, nor speak in an "ekklesia".

NOT WOMEN IN GENERAL FROM THIS CONTEXT!

Arnold, even if you were correct that "gune" means ONLY
"wife" (which no translator agrees with you), you keep missing the KEY point
that that Ray made that an Israelite woman who has sex with an Israelite man IS his
"wife" UNLESS her father prohibits it.

This verse applies to all women (wives, virgins, widows, and whores), and
all men (husbands, sons, brothers, and fathers).

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp
authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Please note before we progress on, that at
present we are looking at only two verses without letting our thoughts to be influenced by
different verses in a different context. (This is what you usually do).

Now that we have looked at some
things in common in these verses, we can consider some of the differences. The major
difference is found in the word silence which is one single word in English,
but they are two different words with different meanings in the Greek. This effectively
makes a context change in the second passage in regard to married women opening their
mouths or not in public meetings.

In the 1 Corinthian 14 passage, the word
translated as silence is Strongs 4601 see-gah-o to which he assigns the meaning as being, to keep
silence, hold one's peace, to be kept in silence, be concealed.

Other examples of the use of this word are
found as highlighted in the following:

Luke 9:36 And
when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it close, and
told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.

Luke 20:26 And
they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled
at his answer, and held their peace.

Act 12:17 But he, beckoning unto them with
the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought
him out of the prison.

Act 15:12 Then all the multitude kept
silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and
wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their
peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

1 Cor. 14:28 But if there be no interpreter,
let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to
God.

1 Cor. 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or
three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of
power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the
preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept
secret since the world began.

What do we see in these verses?
Well, the major translation is held their peace. The words
held and peace are the same word sigao. When we go back to the original verse about women being
silent in the churches or assemblies, the verb keep silence is present in
tense, and to speak is also present in tense. Overall, the thrust
of this verse is about being silent in certain conditions or situations. We will
come back to this after looking at the second verse.

1 Tim 2:9-11 In like manner also, that women adorn
themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls,
or costly array; But
that(which becometh
women professing godliness) with good works.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to
teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam
was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was
in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in
childbearing,
if they continue in faith and charity and
holiness with sobriety.

The key phrase we are considering is Let
the woman learn in silence with all subjection. Here the word
silence is quite a different word to silence as found in the 1 Cor. 14:34 passage. The word is
Strongs 2271, (hay-soo-khee'-ah)
to which Strong assigns the meaning as being stillness, that is, desistance from
bustle or language: - quietness. It is the feminine form of Strongs 2272 meaning still (undisturbed, undisturbing):
- peaceable, quiet. As we did with the other 1st Corinthians
verse, we can look at how this word is translated in other places, that is, we can look at other places where we find the word in Greek.

2 Thess 3:11 For we hear that there are some which walk
among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are
such we command and exhort by our
Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own
bread.

This time we have only one or two verses
we can look at comparative translations. Strong gives the following information for
silence in this passage:

(1)quietness

(2)description of the life of one who stays at
home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others.

(3)

Note that is a
noun. This feminine noun originates from Strongs 2272,
whereas in the 1 Cor. 14 passage the word silence in keep
silence is a verb. Now we can look at Strongs 2722
passages.

1 Tim 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority;
that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

1 Peter 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair,
and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of
the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet
spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

Although our translators were inconsistent
in the way they translated words, we can easily see the difference between
silence as in the first passage and silence as in the second
passage. The first is about wives not speaking in certain circumstances, whereas the
second is about the attitude of wives towards their husbands, in their speech. An important point here is that in both passages,
is that both are in the context of a woman and her husband.
Any extension to women in general is changing the context and thus has no validity.
To do this is totally misleading.

Arnold may be correct and all the
other translators and concordances wrong, but this may be the straw that broke the
camels back.

TRANSLATORS
MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE WRONG SINCE WIVES ARE ALWAYS "WOMEN".

Which
ignores your own argument that this applies only to wives. If even one translator
had agreed with you, they would have translated this word "gune" as
"wives", not "women". Every one of the following ten
translations considered "gune" to mean women, not wives, and you have yet to
produce even one translation where it says "wives":

WHY WOULD THEY WHEN WIVES ARE ALWAYS WOMEN? ALL YOUR VERSE QUOTING
MEANS NOTHING. YOU THINK YOU WILL BE HEARD BY THE ABUNDANCE OF WORDS. THE "MAN" IS ALWAYS "ANER" =
"HUSBAND". WHERE DO YOU INVENT THE PLURAL FROM? YOU
ARE STILL DODGING THE CONTEXT ISSUE IN TEN VERSIONS.

Don't get stupid on us here, Arnold. You're claiming that this verse
applies ONLY to wives, and the translators say it means "women", which INCLUDES
wives, AND widows, AND virgins, AND whores.

Furthermore, the word "aner" [#435] from which
"husbands" was translated is translated as "men" 156 times and as
"husband" only 50 times.

In the light of these different words for
silence we can re-appraise the application of these two verses. We will
read the first verse again,

1 Cor 14:34-35 Let your women
keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but
they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the
law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it
is a shame for women to speak in the church.

"Asking
their husbands at home" shows it is confined to the husband-wife context.
Here, as has been pointed out, the context is that of husbands and wives in the
assemblies. Historically, husbands and wives sat on
opposite sides of the meeting place, and Paul prohibited wives from
calling out to their husbands to ask questions, but to wait until they were at home to do
it. This passage is prefixed with For God is not the author of confusion, but
of peace, as in all churches of the saints and thus we see that it would be shameful
for wives to so speak in the church situation because this would be confusing
and disturbing to the speaker as well as to all others there. The verse is absolutely only in the context of a husband and his
wife.

Arnold has been asked to provide the
verse which illustrates this unusual seating arrangement, and its fairly certain he
will not be able to provide it. Its key to his argument because he can
now claim that with todays modern seating arrangement in churches,
its no longer necessary for women to be silent.

I POINTED OUT THAT THIS WAS
HISTORICAL. NOTE THAT THE SAME SEPARATION OF MEN FROM WOMEN STILL CARRIES ON IN
JEWISH SYNAGOGUES TODAY. POSSIBLY TODAY'S SEATING ARRANGEMENT IS WRONG!.
I SAID EXACTLY NOTHING ABOUT TODAY'S MODERN CHURCH SEATING ARRANGEMENTS. I AM
NOT CLAIMING A THING OUTSIDE OF THE GIVEN CONTEXT. ALL THAT IS YOUR IDEA. IT
IS YOUR IDEA TO TRY TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF "SIGAO" TOO. WHAT DOES
"HELD THEIR PEACE" SIGNIFY TO YOU?

First of all, Arnold--WHAT HAS THE JEWISH SEATING ARRANGEMENT GOT TO DO
WITH THE ISRAELITE SEATING ARRANGEMENT? You don't seem to comprehend even yet that
there is nothing more opposite from each other than jews and Israelites, than the Talmud
and the Torah.

Second of all, it is YOU who insists that
I confine my comments to Scripture, but now here you are expecting me to accept a
non-Scriptural (and absurd) statement as a fact of life.

Until you produce the Scripture, and I
don't mean a Talmudic reference, your point is null and void.

OH YES IT HAS MEANING, ESPECIALLY IF THE
PARTICULAR JEWS WERE ISRAELITES. HAVE YOU NEVER REFERRED TO
HISTORICAL SOURCES? I THINK I CAN RECALL YOU
EVEN QUOTING JOSEPHUS!!

There are NO jews today who are Israelites, who are descendants of the
Israelites, nor whose very own writings even imply that they're descendants of the
Israelites. Most jew writings claim that most jews are Ashkenazis or Khazars,
neither of whom are even Semites [read: sons of Shem], much less Hebrews [read: sons of
Eber], nor Israelites [read: sons of Jacob].

And, no, I do not quote Josephus, and in fact have wasted much time having
to correct the LIES written by the LIAR jew [though I repeat myself] Joesphus which have
been posted to this very forum which completely contradict Scripture. Neither
Josephus nor your jew sources are valid on an Israelite forum and never will be.

If you cannot produce an Israelite source for your claim that men and
women were ever segregated from each other in an "ekklesia", then your claim is
not accepted.

AS ALSO SAITH THE LAW.

We have here the phrase, as also saith the Law. Some men say this means that all women
are to be subject to all men, but they cannot produce any place in the Law of God where
this is said. Even in the first mention in:

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy
conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy
desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

- this is
confined to a wife being subject to her (own) husband. It shows the order God has
established. This order is exactly the same as what we find in the New Testament.

There is nothing said about wives being
subject to other mens husbands. Peter puts it this way:

1 Peter 3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, callinghimlord: whose
daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

The question is not whether or
not wives should be subject to other mens husbands. The
question is why Arnold continues to insist that
women should teach men, have authority over men, or speak in an ekklesia.

WHERE HAVE I INSISTED THAT
WOMEN SHOULD TEACH MEN? I SAID THAT WIVES SHOULD NOT TEACH HUSBANDS. TRY
READING WHAT WAS WRITTEN JOHN.. YOUR QUESTION IS DELIBEREATLY TRYING TO TWIST THIS TO YOUR
OUT-OF-CONTEXT VIEW.

Will you please produce just one
translation which agrees with you that this verse is confined only to wives? If you don't
do this simple thing, and then defend why that translator disagrees with all the rest,
this point too is null and void.

THE POINT IS THAT YOU CANNOT PRODUCE ONE PASSAGE OR VERSION WITH YOUR
SUPPOSED CONTEXT. YOU SHOW ME
WHERE "ANER" DOES NOT MEAN "HUSBAND". IF YOU CANNOT THEN IT IS
YOU THAT IS NULL AND VOID. ARE YOU SUGGESTION
THAT "WOMEN" SHOULD NOT ASK THEIR HUSBANDS "AT HOME"? HOW COULD
SUCH A "WOMAN" NOT BE A "WIFE". OR ARE YOU ADVOCATING WIFE
SWAPPING TO COVER THE FIELD!!

As pointed out before, "aner" appears more as "men"
than as "husbands, plus Strong's defines it as "any male". This means
that women should ask their "men" at home, which could be sons, OR fathers, OR
brothers--or even husbands:

1) with reference to sex

a) of a male

b) of a husband

c) of a betrothed or future husband

2) with reference to age, and to distinguish
an adult man from a boy

3) any male

4) used generically of a group of both men
and women

In addition, husbands have a particular obligation
befire God which brothers, fathers, and sons do not have:

And the spirit of jealousy
come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of
jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:

Amazement means
terror. This is not to be the result of a wife being terrorized!
Then Peter continues:

1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being
heirs together of the grace of life; that Your prayers be not hindered.

Finally Peter instructs us in the next
verse to have the same attitude towards every believer:

1 Peter 7:8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having
compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

Asking
husbands questions is where wives are required to be silent in the assembly and this
limitation only is what is determined by the context.

I missed this gross
error before. Arnold, it says for women to ask their men AT HOME, not in the
assembly!!! You've got this exactly backwards:

1Cr 14:35 And if they
will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands athome: for it is a shame
for women to speak in the church.

Thus Paul details the objective of the
exercise which is to maintain quietness and order an assembly.

Correction. An ekklesia is defined as any assembly of Israelites, any place,
any time.

NOT TRUE JOHN. THIS
SEEMS A CORRECTION TO YOU BECAUSE IT IS ONE THAT EXISTS ONLY IN YOUR MIND. YOUR
DEFINITION IS FAULTY.. HAVE A LOOK AT THE SAME WORD TRANSLATED AS
"ASSEMBLY" AND SEE IT IS USED OF A PUBLIC MEETING IN EPHESUS. ALSO, IN THE
PATTERN OF THE OLD TESTAMENT THERE ARE TWO PARALLEL BUT DIFFERENT WORDS, "KAHAL"
AND "EDAH" WITH DIFFERING COMPOSITION OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED.

Let's stick with the following Strong's definition of
"ekklesia", which includes "assembly of the Israelites", and is not
restricted to your faulty notion that this definition "exists only in [my]
mind":

YES WE CAN STICK WITH STRONGS. CANNOT YOU READ WHAT STRONG'S
1), 1a) AND 1c) READS? -OR NEXT TIME AROUND ARE YOU GOING TO
CHANGE YOUR TUNE AND SAY STRONG IS WRONG! YOUR SUPPOSED LIMITATION DOES STILL EXIST
JUST IN YOUR MIND. WHO THEN HAS THE "FAULTY NOTION"?

You claimed "your definition is faulty", when my definition is
exactly 1b) below. Do we now agree that "ekklesia" also includes "the
assembly of the Israelites"??

1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some
public place, an assembly

a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the
council for the purpose of deliberating .

b) the assembly of the Israelites

c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously

d) in a Christian sense

1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious
meeting

2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal
salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own
religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for
the body for order's sake

3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a
company and are united into one body

4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth

5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received
into heaven

Now we can compare the second passage and
see if it means that women should not speak in the assembly. Let us read the verses again.

1 Tim 2:9-11 In like manner also, that women adorn
themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or
pearls, or costly array;
But (which becometh women professing
godliness) with good works.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to
teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For
Adam was first formed, then
Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the
transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in
childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with
sobriety.

The essence of this passage can be seen in
the word silence. We have seen that it carries the sense of
stillness, desistance from bustle or language, quietness, still, undisturbed, undisturbing, peaceable, and quiet. It is about a
wifes attitude, behavior, manner of attire and her relationship with her (own)
husband. This is about the manner of speaking and her deportment, rather than not
speaking at all.

Except that the use of the
word ekklesia suggests that women should be silent
when any number Israelites might be present.

WHERE EVER DO YOU GET THIS
SUGGESTION FROM? DID ANNA IN THE TEMPLE DO WRONG WHEN SHE PROPHESIED?

You have no evidence, Arnold, that Anna ever
violated 1 Timothy 2:12, do you? Yes, she's been referenced by some as a woman who
was permitted to speak before an assembly or church meeting, but the following Scripture
indicates that she was speaking to potential converts to Christianity personally rather
than before an assembly. Furthermore, she was an 84 year old widow, which means that
she was not a "prostitute", "fornicator", "whore", nor
"harlot":

(Luk 2:36) And there
was Anna, a prophetess, daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher, she was much advanced
in days, having lived with an husband seven years from her virginity,

(Luk 2:37) and she is a widow
of about eighty-four years, who did depart not from the temple, with fasts and
supplications serving, night and day,

(Luk 2:38) and she, at that hour,
having come in, was confessing, likewise, to the Lord, and was speaking concerning him, to
all those looking for redemption in Jerusalem.

Being a prophet or prophetess does not require one
to speak before an assembly, because this could involve only "one gifted with more
than ordinary spiritual and moral insight". By no means does this even imply
that Anna violated the rules of the church:

Main Entry: proph�et
Pronunciation: 'pr�-f&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English prophete, from Old French, from Latin propheta, from
Greek prophEtEs, from pro for + phanai to speak -- more at FOR, BAN

Date: 12th century1: one who utters divinely inspired revelations; specificallyoften
capitalized: the writer of one of the prophetic books of
the Old Testament2: one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; especially: an inspired poet3: one who foretells future events : PREDICTOR4: an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group5Christian Sciencea: a spiritual seer b:
disappearance of material sense before the conscious facts of spiritual Truth
- proph�et�hood /-"hud/ noun

YOU
ARE REALLY STRUGGLING JOHN. SHE WAS A PROPHET BUT SHE DID OTHER THINGS SUCH AS
FASTING, SUPPLICATING AND "SPEAKING" - YES, "SPEAKING".

Why
did you quote this verse, Arnold? To try to prove that Anna had authority over or
taught a man, or spoke before an assembly?

You
have no evidence that she was "speaking" before an assembly, do you?
You're also presuming that she taught men or had authority over men, but you can not find
the verse where she did, can you?

Why
did you quote this verse?

The latter part of this quotation has
reference to Eve being deceived. This provides an indication as to why women are not
to teach husbands, and the indication is that women are more easily deceived than
men. We can all see how many cults were started by women. The woman said:
The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. Adam received the fruit from the
hand of his wife; he knew he was transgressing, he was not deceived; however, she led the
way, and in consequence of this she was subjected to the domination of her husband:
Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee- Gen.
3:16. In Gods order He has subjected the wife, expressly, to the government of
her husband. This husband/wife context continues to the end of this 1 Timothy
chapter where we read about the wife being saved in childbirth if they
continue in faith and charity. This shows that the context is still about the
husband and wife relationship where a wife is not to teach her husband. Thus it says
nothing here about any other woman usurping authority over other womans' husband.
Note here that we are talking about this one verse only.

In group email discussions I have pointed
out some of these factors, and have found some refusal to accept the context of these two
passages. One email read, I know what the Bible says, and what I have written
about my views stand...Here, you too have gone afield, and
stretched the entire issue....wordsmithing again.
"Wordsmithing" must mean "changing what I
have said"! This speaks volumes as to how some Identity leaders refuse to
consider these verses in their context, saying that context and word examination is word-smithing. It is a typical position where a person can become
bound by the words of their mouths.

Wordsmithing
might be an appropriate title if we only knew what Arnold was attempted to smith.
Perhaps when we know exactly what he wants to smith, wed all agree that wordsmithing is exactly what he did here.

AGAIN, WHEN YOU TRY TO
MANIPULATED A CONTEXT YOU ARE WORDSMITHING, ARE YOU NOT? SO IT IS NOT ME, IS IT?

I must admit, Arnold, that you do a great job of studying the context,
vowel points, tense, sentence structure, etc., of both Hebrew and Greek writings to glean
their real meaning and point out the errors in many translations. I agree with most
of what you write.

Even though very few agree with what
you're writing here, your track record suggests that we need to listen more closely to
what you're writing so we can flush out what it is you're attempting to prove.

But in this instance, I must also admit
that your insults, character assassination, protecting a "man" who's slandered
members of this forum, all suggest that you're wordsmithing here in a futile attempt to
protect your "religious convictions".

KINDLY SHOW ME ANY WORD-MEANINGS I HAVE CHANGED, OR ANY CONTEXT I HAVE
VIOLATED.

This is too funny for words, Arnold. This entire post is littered
with your wordmandering, and now you ask me to show you where? I will oblige by
highlighting all the places where you've wordsmithed in red, though I doubt if you'll ever agree that it's wordsmithing.

There have been some emails about whether
the word women includes foreign women. This shows how we can wander away from
context into fruitless discussions. Foreign women would not be permitted in
Israelite assemblies. And, whatever could it have to do with the husbands and wives
context?

Similarly I have been asked, In which
context would it be acceptable for a woman to have authority over a man?"
Now see how this is a loaded question to try to extend the context of 1 Cor. 14:34 from that of husbands and wives. We
will come to look at the answer to this question from a differing context.

However, this will have to
wait for a different post, because Arnold has yet to address this
question completely.

AGAIN, YOU ARE VIEWING THIS APART
FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE.

Again you're avoiding a direct answer to a simple question.

Emails have told me
how wrong I am and that it is clearly written that all females must never ever
take authority over males. I asked some simple questions about this, such as:

Is there an age
or other limit on the following:

Eph. 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for
this is right. Honour thy father and
mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)
That it may be well with thee,
and thou mayest live long on the earth.

Which ignores the chain of
command in the family where the wife reports to her husband in the same way that the
church reports to Jesus.

SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT THIS
VERSE ABOUT CHILDREN OBEYING PARENTS IS WRONG! CANNOT YOU READ? THE CONTEXT IS
ABOUT CHILDREN OBEYING PARENTS. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO CHANGE IT TO WIVES AND
HUSBANDS. AGAIN JOHN, IT IS YOU PERCEIVED NOTIONS THAT MAKES YOU BLIND TO CONTEXT.

Wow. Perhaps this is your most revealing statement. What kind
of an Israelite would believe that "parents" aren't also husbands and wives?

This might be wrong, and you need to
correct it if it is, but it appears that you believe that most (if not all)
"parents" are NOT husbands and wives?

Whew. How low can we go?

Since you didn't reply to this point, can we assume that you still believe
that referring to someone's parents as "married to each other" is "changing
the context", Arnold?

Prov. 15:20, "A wise son maketh
a glad father: but a foolish man despiseth his mother"

Which says nothing about a
woman having authority over a MAN.

DID YOU NOT SEE WHAT I SAID
ABOUT AGE LIMITS? THE CONTEXT HERE IS ABOUT CHILDREN AND PARENTS AND YOU BRING IN AN
IMPOSED DIFFERENT CONTEXT ABOUT WOMEN HAVING AUTHORITY OVER A MAN. YOU STILL HAVE
NOT GRASPED ANYTHING ABOUT CONTEXT AND CANNOT SEE BEYOND YOUR PRECONCEPTIONS.

Ah. So now it's ok to note that children have parents? Can we
also presume that it's ok to note that those parents are usually husbands and wives?

Would you please be specific about what
your point is here? Why did you quote this verse?

Prov 23:22 Hearken unto thy father
that begat thee, and despise not thy mother when she is old.

Ditto.

Note the
important distinction between the way sons are to treat their mother and their
fathers in these two verses:

Father:

Maketh a
glad father.

Hearken unto.

Mother:

Despise
not

Despise
not when she is old

Hearken:

H8085

sha^ma?

shaw-mah'

A primitive root; to hear intelligently (often with
implication of attention, obedience, etc.;

Prov 31:1 The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him.

Ironically, one of the things
that king Lemuels mother taught him was: Give
not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth
kings.

ARE YOU
SAYING THAT KING LEMUEL'S MOTHER DID NOT TEACH HIM? AGAIN YOU COME BACK WITH A
CHANGE IN CONTEXT! WHAT EVER DOES A KING GIVING HIS STRENGH TO PROSITIUTES HAVE TO
DO WITH A MOTHER TEACHING A CHILD?

Are you suggesting that Lemuel's father had nothing to do with teaching
Lemuel? Are you suggesting that Lemuel's mother usurped the authority of Lemuel's
father in teaching Lemuel, or do you believe she had authority from his father to do so?

WHAT ARE WE TOLD? IT IS, "THE PROPHECY THAT HIS
MOTHER TAUGHT HIM". I AM SUGGESTING NOTHING AS YOU ARE.

Context, Arnold. What about the chain of command in the family which
you appear to have agreed with in the past, but now you seem to have forgotten it.
Did you disagree or not understand that the father is the head of the household and if
Lemuel's mother taught him anything, it was with permission from his father (assuming you
agree that his parents were married?)? Under Israelite law, a mother has
authority over her son only through the father.

the prophecy that his mother taught him.

What these Identity brothers have done
is to change the words to, authority over the man" from "authority over
the husband". They have not done their homework and determined that the
word for man is aner or
husband and is not men in general.

It is appropriate here to raise another
issue about men and woman. In 1 Co 12:7, But
the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal, some might
ask, What about the women? The word for man here is Strongs 1538 hekastos which
is used in and all-encompassing way inclusive of women. At Pentecost the women were
present, were they not? As soon as we mix up words, such as the different words for
man, e.g. anthropos, aner and hekastos we
are inventing new contexts and thus are effectively adding to the Word of God.
Sadly, there are Identity leaders who do that and who just do not want to know about their
error.

And there were women present
when Jesus chose the Twelve Disciples, so why would Arnold ignore that Jesus didnt
choose a single woman?

When we come to 1 Tim. 2:12, But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor
to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence, as has been shown the word
for man here is aner = husband.
But this is not acceptable to so many both in Identity and in some denominational
churches. That is, they will not accept the it is written. There are
differing words for teach but didasko
here, according to Strongs 1321 is:

1.to hold discourse with others in order to
instruct them,

2.to deliver didactic discourses

3.to be a teacher

4.to discharge the office of a teacher,

5.to conduct one's self as a teacher

6.to teach one

7.to impart instruction

8.to instill doctrine into one the thing taught
or enjoined

9.to explain or
expound a thing.

These all refer to the relationship
between a husband and a wife because this is the sole context.

This does
not mean from a common-sense viewpoint that, as wives think differently from husbands;
their input is needed in both structural and spiritual decisions. Women have needs
and the husband has to love his wife as he loves his own body, and therefore the husband
must consider his wife always. But there is no place for role reversals within this
context.

Does the president of
IBM consider his wife always when hes making major corporate decisions
to keep IBM alive? Does a judge in a murder trial consider his wife
always when he finds a man guilty of muder?
Does a truck driver spend his entire day considering his wife always?

The answer is
"no", because sound judicial and business and practical decisions MUST be made
by a man, not by a committee.

WHAT
EVER DOES A HOME SITUATION HAVE TO DO WITH COMMERCE? AGAIN, YOU ARE TRYING TO
RESPOND WITH A DIFFERENT CONTEXT BECAUSE OF PRECONCEIVED FIXATION.

It was you, Arnold, who used the term "consider his wife
always". You didn't confine this to a "home situation".
Can we at least agree that you do not mean "always" in this statement?

Silence is golden? So we agree?

Let us see some things women did outside
of the husband-wife relationship.

1.The witness of a woman moved a city (John 4:30)

2.Women carried the first message from the tomb.

3.Women hosted prayer meetings (Acts 12:12)

4.Women were the first hearers of the gospel in Athens (Acts 16:13)

5.Women received special mention and honour (Phil. 4:3)

6.Older women to teach the younger (Titus 2:3)

7.Women to have the right to choose a husband (I
Cor 7:2)

This verse says nothing
about a woman choosing a husband, and its well known from Scripture that its
her father who has that right 

REALLY!
HAVE A LOOK AT "HAVE" IN STRONGS AND NOTE THE VERB IS ACTIVE. WHERE IS
THIS "WELL KNOWN" IN SCRIPTURE? WATCH YOUR CONTEXTS WELL HERE JOHN!

By Israelite law, Arnold, it's the father who makes that decision, not the
woman:

Exd
22:16And if
a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to
be his wife.

Exd
22:17If her father
utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

THAT JOHN IS A DIFFERENT CONTEXT!!

No, Arnold, this is PRECISELY the context under which many if not most
marriages begin, and it's incredibly germaine to the entire discussion here. You
can't parse up God's Word so you get to toss out the PRECISE process by which Israelite
marriages are created.

8.A
married woman can sanctify her unsaved husband (I Cor7:13

But she
doesn't gain authority over him, nor teach him.

9.A woman (as well as men) can care for widows
(I Tim 5:16)

There are many differences between men and women, right from conception. Today these
differences are commonly ignored by unbelievers and by believers who are conforming to
this world.

Under Mosaic Law, ritual cleansing after childbirth was different being a total
of forty days for a male child, and eighty days for a female child (Lev. 12:2-5).
This too is all in the context of marriage. In the Levitical order, women could have no priestly roles. When the temple
worship was established, there was the Court of the women established. At the time
of Jesus, we find Anna prophesying in the
temple. She was not keeping silence there in the not -speaking
sense, was she? And likewise, today women can do the same.
But a wife cannot become a bishop or an elder in an assembly because she cannot qualify as
being the husband of one wife.

The matter of Deborah as a judge of Israel has been raised in emails. It is
claimed that she usurped authority over men. This issue of course was raised by men who
refuse the husband/wife context limitation of what we have examined so far. Of
Deborah we read:

Judges 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under
the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah
and Bethel in mountEphraim: and the children
of Israel came up to her for judgment.

It is the God of Israel who appoints and
anoints the prophets of Israel. Why did the Children of Israel come to
her for judgment? It is because God-given authority is recognized by Gods
people.

1 Sam 3:20 And all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba knew
that Samuel was established to be a prophet of the LORD.

The next chapter of Judges tells us that all the leaders of all
the tribes of Israel supported Deborah who said she arose as a mother in Israel.
What does arose mean? Strongs 09695 gives this as
Stood up 240, arise 211, raise 47, establish 27, stand 27, perform 25, confirm
9, again 5, set 5, stablish 3, surely 3, continue 3, sure 2,
abide 1, accomplish 1,

She then instructed Barak,Lead
thy captivity captive, thou son of Abinoam. Was this not taking authority over a man
and instructing him? But this man was not her husband.

Note that it was the
LORD who ordered Deborah to awake, and it was the LORD,
not Deborah, who ordered Barak to lead thy
captivity captive.

THE FIRST VERSE OF THE CHAPTER SAYS THAT IT WAS DEBORAH WHO WAS
DOING THE SPEAKING.

Was Deborah then
speaking to herself? Did Deborah say to herself "Awake, awake, Deborah"?

NO DEBORAH WAS TO AWAKE AND UTTER A SONG. THEN WE ARE TOLD WHAT SHE SANG.

We have a judge and a prophetess who had to wake herself up by talking to
herself?

Silence is golden?
Here you are such a stickler for tense, vowel points, and context, yet you ignore
that this reference to Deborah awakening was in the third person? Deborah was not
singing herself awake, Arnold. The sentence just prior to this verse, in Judges 5:11
is "then the people of the Lord shall go down to the gates", which is followed
by this song in quotes. Did Deborah write this song? No. The Lord God of
Israel did Judges 5:5. Did Deborah sing this song? No. The "people
of the Lord" did. Is singing this song tantamount to "instructed
Barak" as you say? No. It's only a song. Did the Prince of Isachar,
under whose command Barak was, sing him a song, or order him to war Judges 5:15 ?

"TORAH MISUSE.

JOHN I AM
NOT GOING TO DISCUSS TORAH ANY MORE UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT RECKONING YOURSELF DEAD UNTO
SIN MEANS.... AND YOU DO IT. IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THERE IS NO POINT. SO I
REPEAT, "DEAD MEN CANNOT SIN" AND ONLY
"DEAD" MEN ARE RIGHTEOUS. THE LAW IS STILL IN PLACE UNCHANGED FOR
OTHERS.

AS PAUL
AGREES" Knowing this, that the law is not madefor a
righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for
sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of
mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with
mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing
that is contrary to sound doctrine;

JOHN, I
SAID ONCE THAT I SUSPECTED THAT YOU MUST HAVE, OR HAVE HAD, MATRIMONIAL PROBLEMS. IF YOU
HAD RECKONED YOURSELF "DEAD UNTO SIN", WOULD YOU HAVE HAD THE PROBLEMS?
YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT YOU STILL LOOK UPON WOMEN TO LUST AFTER THEM.... REMEMBER WHEN YOU
SAID YOU THOUGHT JESUS MADE IT TOO TOUGH? "DEAD" MEN CANNOT SO
LUST!! SAYING THIS HERE DOES NOT APPLY ONLY TO YOU, BUT TO ALL READERS IN THE SAME
POSITION. I MAKE NO APOLOGY!

ARNOLD
KENNEDY.

You can keep
knocking yourself out with ad hominems and slurs, but as noted before, you won't change
the Word of God one tittle. All you're proving by such language is that you already
realize that your argument is weak. It's a great debate tactic, following up a weak
point with a confusing and misleading ad hominem, but let's stick to the facts anyway.

First, since you have
yet to define when the word "nomos" is a reference to the Torah, and when it's
NOT, we're going to do this for you:

Second, it
would be depressing to consider how much you've changed my original post around, but then
maybe it's exhilirating to now have such insight into how and why you've managed to change
around what Paul wrote so much. Let's compare what I originally wrote to what you
heard:

Here's my take on how you interpret this, Arnold. You
believe that because Jesus raised the bar on what's required to "enter into the
kingdom of heaven", that Israelites are no longer under an obligation to uphold God's
Law, because Jesus raised the bar too high. How can a man not commit adultery when
Jesus said that adultery is just looking at a woman--ergo, no problem, nobody can uphold
this, so adultery laws are done away with, eh?

This is the exact opposite of what true Israelites
believe, though, to whom Jesus simply emphasized the importance of upholding God's
Law. It doesn't change one tittle of God's Law. It simply makes it more
important than ever (and more difficult than ever) for Israelites to uphold it.

vs

"YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT YOU STILL
LOOK UPON WOMEN TO LUST AFTER THEM"

This wasn't
Ancient Hebrew written millennia ago, translated into Aramaic, then into ancient Greek,
then into modern Greek, then into KJV English, then into modern English (as Paul's
writings were). This was modern English which you managed to completely veverse the
meaning of in just a few days. I said that you seemed to have the attitude that
Jesus made God's Law too tough, followed up with the disclaimer that this is contrary to
what "true Israelites believe" [which implicitly includes my belief], only to
have you claim that this is what I believ.

Ironically, if
I were to tell you that you're so far off the mark that it isn't funny, you'd then claim
that "you hate women".

So far we have only viewed one type of
context abuse. There are other context misuses that involve the wrong meanings
placed upon words. One of these words is The Law or The
Torah. The word torah is loosely and commonly described as being
the five first books of the Bible.

In English usage, the phrase The
Law represents a summation of many differing kinds of laws, some of which may bear
no relationship to other kinds of laws. For instance we have taxation laws that may
have no relationship to legal torts. We have maritime law that may have no reference
to divorce laws. We have a car driving code that bears no relationship to the laws about
flying aircraft. Thus we can see that the Law (as a whole) has many
components.

Likewise it is the same with the
torah. The torah comprises statutes,
judgments, ordinances, commandments,
precepts, charges, and so on. Any one component is not the same as
the others. It is the sum of all of them which is the torah. But
then there is another division into moral law, civil law and religious law.
Religious law is not the same as moral law. Civil law is not the same as moral or
religious law.

So then, when we read in the New Testament
any reference to The Law, the word nomos is used in a similar way as torah
is. Nomos
is translates as law 195 times in the KJV.

How we know what component of the total
nomos is being spoken about is determined by the
context. Let me illustrate.

We will consider one particular context
that gives great difficulty to some people. This is:

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law,
or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
for verily I say unto you, Till heaven and
earth pass, one jot or one tittle
shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

There are those
that say every jot and tittle of the Torah is
still in place in its original form. This of course would have to include the law of
sacrifices Jesus has already satisfied, so this is not still in place, is it?. This view would have to ignore what we read in:

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made
of necessity a change also of the law.

A change
is a change from the original.

And heres where Arnold admits that it was Paul who he
THINKS had the authority to change Gods Law.

THEN WHY ARE YOU NOT MAKING BURNT OFFERINGS?

NO, IT WAS NOT PAUL WHO MADE THE CHANGE. IT
WAS THE CHANGE IN THE PRIESTHOOD THAT NECESSITATED THE CHANGE. YOU ARE SPEAKING AS
IF JESUS DID NOT BECOME ISRAEL'S HIGH PRIEST. YOU MIGHT WELL HAVE ASKED WHO JESUS IS
WHO THOUGHT HE HAD AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE LAW. DID YOU NOT READ WHERE JESUS SAID SO
OFTEN, "BUT I SAY UNTO YOU"?

"But I say unto you" does not modify one whit of "But heaven and earth will come to an end before the
smallest tittle of The Torah may be dropped out. Luke 16:17 [red
letters]".

"But I say unto you" does not modify one whit of "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command
you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I
command you, Deuteronomy 4:2"

Nor does it change the following:

No Israelite may eat
any fat or any blood; this is a rule to be kept foreverby
all Israelites wherever they live, Leviticus 3:17

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed [read: destroyed].
Malachi 3:6

Paul had NO such
authorityAND HE DID NO SUCH THING!

THEN
YOU ARE SAYING JESUS HAD NO SUCH AUTHORITY!!!!!!!!!! YOU JUST HAVE NOT GRASPED THIS
SUBJECT AT ALL, HAVE YOU?.

Not only did Jesus NOT have such
authority, but He OBEYED every tit and tittle of the Torah, didn't he?

And He WARNED you to, also.

Arnold is misrepresenting or
misunderstanding what Paul wrote in order to arrive at this
conclusion.

DO YOU STILL BELIEVE THIS?

No, Arnold, I do not
"believe this". I KNOW this.

So we can look
for context within this Sermon On The Mount. This commences with the
beatitudes, the first being, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven. The whole sermon is about attitudes, human relationships, and
interactions with God. These give the context and Jesus said at the end,
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and
doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a
rock-(Matt. 7:24).

Jesus used the
words, These things! What is different between these things
and the Torah? What then about every jot and tittle
about? This is every jot and tittle of the present
context or whatever context is being in place!

Jesus said He
came not to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill. So what is the law and
the prophets in regard to attitudes and relationships? Jesus tells us:

Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law (nomos) and the prophets.

Matt 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the
law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself. On these two commandments hang allthe law and the prophets.

(Remember the
email saying that hang always means being hung with a rope around the
neck).

The
law is the Torah [read: the first five books of the Holy Bible], and the
prophets are the rest of the booksand Arnold Knows it.

What we have to
note here is that the word for "law" in these passages is not "nomos"; it is "entole" - (Strongs
1785). This is the same word as is used in:

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments,
that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the
city.

The word nomos as it relates to torah is not found
here. So it does not say, Blessed are they that do his torah, does it?

Correct.
Commandments are not THE Torah. But they ARE part and parcel OF the Torah. The
Torah is made up of statutes, judgements, commandments,
my voice, my charge, and my laws:

Did Jesus change
the Law? In one sense He did; He made it into a matter of the heart. He made
it tougher. He said a thought was the same as having done the action.
Jesus quoted Torah passages and then qualified them. He showed what
fulfilled means. Listen to the Ye have heard and the But I
say unto you in the following verses.

Many judeochristians like
Arnold believe that the Torah is a smorgasbord where "Christians" or Israelites
can pick and choose the laws they like, toss out the ones they don't like, unilaterally
demand that we accept their choices, then name call us with things like "you
and your friends quote Paul out of context almost all the time, in the fashion of the
illustration of sticking a pin in the Bible that I mentioned in the introduction", and "you
are creating a non-existing conflict", and "determined,
dogmatic (and "pig headed" as we say here in New Zealand)".

Does Arnold like the law against
murder. Sure, so we're gonna keep that one. But does Arnold like the law against
sodomy. Nope, not at all, so he simply tosses it out and we must go along with him,
otherwise he's got tons of more labels to pin on us.

UNTIL
YOU TAKE A TUMBLE ABOUT OUR GREAT HIGH PRIEST AND THE CHANGE IN THE PRIESTHOOD, THERE IS
NO POINT TOUCHING ON THE TORAH UNTIL YOU DO.

When Paul quoted Jeremiah "Behold,
the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a newcovenant with the
house of Israel, and with the house of Judah" Paul KNEW that the word was "renewed covenant", not
"new covenant".

It was not Paul who changed it from
"renewed covenant" to "new covenant", was it?

Was it Jesus? No. Was it
you? Perhaps. Was it the "translators", or the "church",
or the "jews"? Probably all of them, plus some.

Matt 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of
the judgment: But I say unto
you,
That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the
judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,
shall be in
danger of the council: but
whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matt 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a
writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put
away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth
her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matt 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by
them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine
oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is
God's throne:

Matt 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them
that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
use you, and persecute you;

Jesus said, But I say unto you fifteen times in that form.

When we read the Torah without
this change Jesus made, we are in the letter. This
kills we are told. We must now read and do the Law in the
fulfilled form. This is the context in which we must read Moses and the
Prophets, as Jesus said:

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth;
the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak
unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Arnold knows by now that it's Paul
himself who reminded us that the spirit is the House of Israel, and the
flesh is Ishmael [and his descendants].

HOW
WOULD, "THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU" REFER TO ISHMAEL AND HIS
DESCENDANTS? ANSWER THIS PLEASE!

Man, you never grasped a word that's been
written on this forum about who "spirit"
is, have you? Ishmaelites are NOT spirit, only Israelites are. Ishmaelites are
flesh.

This simple sentence tells you that only
Israelites quickeneth [read: are given life], that "the words" [read: the Torah]
ARE spirit and ARE life, and that Ishmaelites are NOT.

Simple.

You're building a "religion" on
a whole pile of misconceptions about who's spirit and who's flesh.

And as
Paul said,

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that
being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not
in the oldness of the letter.

Now John, when
Paul says, We are delivered from the Law, he is not saying that the Law is
deleted; he is saying that it is to be obeyed in the fulfilled form. This is
the context. Here we find the essence of all the supposed conflict between
Paul and Jesus. You and your friends are viewing the Apostle Paul in "the oldness of the letter" and not in "newness
of spirit" as qualified by the words of Jesus. Thus you are creating a
non-existing conflict. Not only that, you and your friends quote Paul out of context
almost all the time, in the fashion of the illustration of sticking a pin in the Bible
that I mentioned in the introduction.

Because you have
been so determined, dogmatic (and "pig headed" as we say here in New Zealand), I
realize that it will be very difficult to wrap your mind about this. It was hard for
me too at one time, but God came through. May He come through for you too.